Pol: Short video of your president
 

Telling and funny. In this video clip, Bush shows his intelligent and
straight-forward approach to questions he hasn't been prepped for.

It's a little painful to watch. (The audience actually laughs *at*
him.) And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

http://viral.3dge.net/attachments/00...overeignty.mov

"Florida Patriot" wrote in message
om...
Telling and funny. In this video clip, Bush shows his intelligent and
straight-forward approach to questions he hasn't been prepped for.

It's a little painful to watch. (The audience actually laughs *at*
him.) And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

http://viral.3dge.net/attachments/00...overeignty.mov

At least he did not have problems with dangling chads like some Florida
people did. Plus, he was by far the better choice.

"Florida Patriot" wrote in message
om...
Telling and funny. In this video clip, Bush shows his intelligent and
straight-forward approach to questions he hasn't been prepped for.

It's a little painful to watch. (The audience actually laughs *at*
him.) And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

http://viral.3dge.net/attachments/00...overeignty.mov

I don't know the context of this meeting, but you have to admit while Bush
butchered the answer, it is a strange question. What the heck is the host
talking about? 21st century tribes and tribal sovereignty in the state and
federal government? Is he just asking about the role of the state vs.
federal? Maybe there was something about "tribes" in this meeting, but
maybe Bush should have asked him what the hell he was talking about first.

I'm not sure what this has to do with effectiveness as a president, btw.
Clinton proved there is no link between smooth talking and effective
leadership. Also, while Bush fumbles more than the average president, I'm
sure you could find equal moments for any president, Clinton included. If
you stand in front of a camera long enough, you are going to say or do
something stupid.

dwhite

"Leon" wrote in message
om...

At least he did not have problems with dangling chads like some Florida
people did.

He might have if he'd voted in Florida. If there was ever a President who
would have trouble, it's him.

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...

"Leon" wrote in message
om...

At least he did not have problems with dangling chads like some Florida
people did.

He might have if he'd voted in Florida. If there was ever a President who
would have trouble, it's him.


How predictable are you guys? The liberal line is always that the
republican president is an idiot. Ford was a clumsy idiot, Reagan was a
sleepy old fool, Bush 1 didn't even know the price of milk and was out of
touch, Bush 2 is an idiot. On the other hand, Jimmy Carter was a genius,
Bill Clinton the first black president and the best thing since sliced
bread, Al Gore the best VP in history, John Kerry oh so sophisticated.

dwhite

To quote an infamous liar and philanderer, "...depends on what the
definition of 'is' is...."

"Dan White" wrote in message
. net...
"Florida Patriot" wrote in message
om...
Telling and funny. In this video clip, Bush shows his intelligent
and
straight-forward approach to questions he hasn't been prepped for.

It's a little painful to watch. (The audience actually laughs *at*
him.) And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your
breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

http://viral.3dge.net/attachments/00...overeignty.mov

I don't know the context of this meeting, but you have to admit while
Bush
butchered the answer, it is a strange question. What the heck is the
host
talking about? 21st century tribes and tribal sovereignty in the
state and
federal government? Is he just asking about the role of the state vs.
federal? Maybe there was something about "tribes" in this meeting,
but
maybe Bush should have asked him what the hell he was talking about
first.

I'm not sure what this has to do with effectiveness as a president,
btw.
Clinton proved there is no link between smooth talking and effective
leadership. Also, while Bush fumbles more than the average president,
I'm
sure you could find equal moments for any president, Clinton included.
If
you stand in front of a camera long enough, you are going to say or do
something stupid.

dwhite

"Florida Patriot" wrote in message

And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

You didn't ... apparently Florida was quite incapable of that.

http://viral.3dge.net/attachments/00...overeignty.mov

JESSE JACKSON: "The President explained. You just didn't understand.
Sovereignty is sovereignty. You understand? It's like in sovereignity. If
you are on a reservation, you have been soverized. Your Ph.D. is in
soverbication. You understand? I don't think you understand."

Say what?! ... ;)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

He might have if he'd voted in Florida. If there was ever a President
who
would have trouble, it's him.


How predictable are you guys? The liberal line is always that the
republican president is an idiot.

Uh huh. And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the most
powerful position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people.

Do you really?

And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

You didn't ... apparently Florida was quite incapable of that.

http://viral.3dge.net/attachments/00...overeignty.mov

JESSE JACKSON: "The President explained. You just didn't understand.
Sovereignty is sovereignty. You understand? It's like in sovereignity. If
you are on a reservation, you have been soverized. Your Ph.D. is in
soverbication. You understand? I don't think you understand."

Say what?! ... ;)

He was mocking Bush.

When President Bush was questioned about tribal sovereignty in the 21st
century at a gathering of minority journalists he responded: "Tribal
sovereignty means that. It's sovereign. You're a ... you're a ... you've
been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign entity." Jesse
Jackson makes light of Bush's remarks at the conference and we speak with
Mark Trahant, the reporter who asked Bush the question. [includes rush
transcript]
http://www.democracynow.org/article....=thread&tid=25

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message

And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

You didn't ... apparently Florida was quite incapable of that.

http://viral.3dge.net/attachments/00...overeignty.mov

JESSE JACKSON: "The President explained. You just didn't understand.
Sovereignty is sovereignty. You understand? It's like in sovereignity.
If
you are on a reservation, you have been soverized. Your Ph.D. is in
soverbication. You understand? I don't think you understand."

Say what?! ... ;)

He was mocking Bush.

No ****, shinola?

When President Bush was questioned about tribal sovereignty in the 21st
snippage

Duh ... where did you suppose my quote of old JJ came from?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 11:30:28 -0400, Jeff Harper wrote:

He might have if he'd voted in Florida. If there was ever a President
who
would have trouble, it's him.


How predictable are you guys? The liberal line is always that the
republican president is an idiot.

Uh huh. And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the most
powerful position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people.

Do you really?

That would be 1 in 300 million or so since the prez has to be a citizen
of the US, and reduced considerably further by the constitutional age
requirement of 35 years and residency requirement of 14 years. But since
you don't seem to be aware of this, that's at least one case where he is
more qualified.

-Doug

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

"Jeff Harper wrote in message

Uh huh. And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the most
powerful position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people.

Do you really?

.... and just how "intelligent" was getting your knob polished in the Oval
Office, getting caught, then attempting to deny it?

You're either really naive, or about the same wattage, to believe that
"intelligence" is a prerequisite for the job.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

Florida Patriot did say:
Telling and funny. In this video clip, Bush shows his intelligent and
straight-forward approach to questions he hasn't been prepped for.
It's a little painful to watch. (The audience actually laughs *at*
him.) And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

Hate to change the subject, but with regard to issues that actually matter
in the presidential race, where do you stand? Do you think that either
candidate reflects the values of someone with a "Patriot" handle? Do you
think that either candidate, once in office, will ACT in a way befitting
an American patriot?

My personal view is that there's not a nickel's worth of difference. Both
will spend our hard earned dollars like it's going out of style. Both will
work to expand their party's power base at the expense of others. Both
will continue to press for more legislation that infringes on the rights
of citizens. Both will bungle foreign affairs.
Neither one, nor anyone I can name from the two major parties, will work
to advance the freedoms and welfare of the average American.

There are alternatives to the Dem/Gop status quo.

www.lp.org

"WoodMangler" wrote in message Florida Patriot did say:
Telling and funny. In this video clip, Bush shows his intelligent and
straight-forward approach to questions he hasn't been prepped for.
It's a little painful to watch. (The audience actually laughs *at*
him.) And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

The fact remains that you'd have to be a lawyer practicing in the narrow
field of Indian affairs to be even remotely conversant in the nuances of
"tribal sovereignity".

Not to mention that what GWB said in the video corresponds almost precisely
with what the Supreme Court said in 1997. In Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe,
No. 94-1474, the Supreme Court held that "Indian tribes ... should be
accorded the same status as foreign sovereigns, against whom States enjoy
Eleventh Amendment immunity."

It takes an agenda to equate ignorance of the complicated doctrine of
"tribal sovereignity" with "intelligence.

My personal view is that there's not a nickel's worth of difference. Both
will spend our hard earned dollars like it's going out of style. Both will
work to expand their party's power base at the expense of others. Both
will continue to press for more legislation that infringes on the rights
of citizens. Both will bungle foreign affairs.
Neither one, nor anyone I can name from the two major parties, will work
to advance the freedoms and welfare of the average American.

There are alternatives to the Dem/Gop status quo.

Yep ... vote for Kinky Freidman for President!

;)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 11:30:28 -0400, Jeff Harper wrote:

He might have if he'd voted in Florida. If there was ever a
President
who
would have trouble, it's him.


How predictable are you guys? The liberal line is always that the
republican president is an idiot.

Uh huh. And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the most
powerful position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people.

Do you really?

That would be 1 in 300 million or so since the prez has to be a citizen
of the US, and reduced considerably further by the constitutional age
requirement of 35 years and residency requirement of 14 years. But since
you don't seem to be aware of this, that's at least one case where he is
more qualified.

I didn't say he was chosen from a group of 6 billion, moron.

You dodged the question and employed two types of fallacious reasoning
(tstrawman and ad hominem).

Answer the question honestly and directly. You can't bring yourself to
admit Bush is not qualified, can you?

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

Uh huh. And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the most
powerful position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people.

Do you really?

... and just how "intelligent" was getting your knob polished in the Oval
Office, getting caught, then attempting to deny it?

That was foolish, agreed. So what? We are talking about Bush's lack of
intelligence, not Clinton's not yours.


You're either really naive, or about the same wattage, to believe that
"intelligence" is a prerequisite for the job.

It is *your* ignorance/stupidity is shining brightly.

Of course we want an intelligent man in office. Only someone with
remarkably poor judgment would not consider intelligence important to the
job.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message

And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

You didn't ... apparently Florida was quite incapable of that.

http://viral.3dge.net/attachments/00...overeignty.mov

JESSE JACKSON: "The President explained. You just didn't understand.
Sovereignty is sovereignty. You understand? It's like in sovereignity.
If
you are on a reservation, you have been soverized. Your Ph.D. is in
soverbication. You understand? I don't think you understand."

Say what?! ... ;)

He was mocking Bush.

No ****, shinola?

Hmm. Guess I missed your meaning. I'm so used to morons on here. By the
way, the right-wing groups all over the Internet are bad mouthing Jackson,
as if he wasn't mocking Bush at the time, and they're giving Bush a pass.

When President Bush was questioned about tribal sovereignty in the 21st
snippage

Duh ... where did you suppose my quote of old JJ came from?

One of the sites attacking Jackson.

"WoodMangler" wrote in message
. ..
Florida Patriot did say:
Telling and funny. In this video clip, Bush shows his intelligent and
straight-forward approach to questions he hasn't been prepped for.
It's a little painful to watch. (The audience actually laughs *at*
him.) And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

Hate to change the subject, but with regard to issues that actually matter
in the presidential race, where do you stand? Do you think that either
candidate reflects the values of someone with a "Patriot" handle? Do you
think that either candidate, once in office, will ACT in a way befitting
an American patriot?

My personal view is that there's not a nickel's worth of difference. Both
will spend our hard earned dollars like it's going out of style. Both will
work to expand their party's power base at the expense of others. Both
will continue to press for more legislation that infringes on the rights
of citizens. Both will bungle foreign affairs.
Neither one, nor anyone I can name from the two major parties, will work
to advance the freedoms and welfare of the average American.

There are alternatives to the Dem/Gop status quo.

www.lp.org

We must choose the best candidate of the two, or the lesser of two evils if
you prefer, because a vote for a third candidate is *almost* the same as no
vote.

I believe Kerry is superior, but if I thought they were the same, "not a
nickle's worth of difference," I would vote Bush out of office. The message
to future Presidents is then that they have to be more responsive to the
people if they want a second term. Keep voting the incumbent out until we
get someone worthy in office.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...

Hmm. Guess I missed your meaning. I'm so used to morons on here.

If you find yourself running into "morons" you might take a look in the
mirror and see if you can spot what might be attracting them.

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message ...
Uh huh. And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the
most
powerful position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people.

Do you really?

... and just how "intelligent" was getting your knob polished in the
Oval
Office, getting caught, then attempting to deny it?

That was foolish, agreed. So what? We are talking about Bush's lack of
intelligence, not Clinton's not yours.

Closer to what was exhibited in the "1 out of 6 billion people" statement
above, I'd say.

You're either really naive, or about the same wattage, to believe that
"intelligence" is a prerequisite for the job.

It is *your* ignorance/stupidity is shining brightly.

Of course, I am just another one of the "morons around here", but is English
your first language?

Of course we want an intelligent man in office. Only someone with
remarkably poor judgment would not consider intelligence important to the
job.

We had one of those last time ... see above.

I'll say it again ... you'd have to be a practicing Indian affairs lawyer to
be conversant with the nuances of "tribal sovereignty". What you really
meant to say in your original post, in place of "intelligence", was
"ignorance" .

.... and you should know better than most that ignorance should be forgiven.
:)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:03:18 -0400, Jeff Harper wrote:


"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 11:30:28 -0400, Jeff Harper wrote:

He might have if he'd voted in Florida. If there was ever a
President
who
would have trouble, it's him.


How predictable are you guys? The liberal line is always that the
republican president is an idiot.

Uh huh. And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the
most powerful position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion
people.

Do you really?

That would be 1 in 300 million or so since the prez has to be a citizen
of the US, and reduced considerably further by the constitutional age
requirement of 35 years and residency requirement of 14 years. But
since you don't seem to be aware of this, that's at least one case where
he is more qualified.

I didn't say he was chosen from a group of 6 billion, moron.

You dodged the question and employed two types of fallacious reasoning
(tstrawman and ad hominem).

Answer the question honestly and directly. You can't bring yourself to
admit Bush is not qualified, can you?

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

No wonder elections are such an ordeal in Florida!

-Doug

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

Jeff Harper did say:
"WoodMangler" wrote in message
. ..
Florida Patriot did say:
Telling and funny. In this video clip, Bush shows his intelligent and
straight-forward approach to questions he hasn't been prepped for.
It's a little painful to watch. (The audience actually laughs *at*
him.) And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

Hate to change the subject, but with regard to issues that actually matter
in the presidential race, where do you stand? Do you think that either
candidate reflects the values of someone with a "Patriot" handle? Do you
think that either candidate, once in office, will ACT in a way befitting
an American patriot?

My personal view is that there's not a nickel's worth of difference. Both
will spend our hard earned dollars like it's going out of style. Both will
work to expand their party's power base at the expense of others. Both
will continue to press for more legislation that infringes on the rights
of citizens. Both will bungle foreign affairs.
Neither one, nor anyone I can name from the two major parties, will work
to advance the freedoms and welfare of the average American.

There are alternatives to the Dem/Gop status quo.

www.lp.org

We must choose the best candidate of the two, or the lesser of two evils if
you prefer, because a vote for a third candidate is *almost* the same as no
vote.

I believe Kerry is superior, but if I thought they were the same, "not a
nickle's worth of difference," I would vote Bush out of office. The message
to future Presidents is then that they have to be more responsive to the
people if they want a second term. Keep voting the incumbent out until we
get someone worthy in office.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

If good people always chose the lesser of two evils, rather than
supporting and acting on what they truly believed, the world would be a
truly different place today. I daresay the US wouldn't exist had our
founders chosen to take the easy way out.
I don't believe that following your conscience is ever a waste of effort.
Even if nothing comes of it this election cycle, it will eventually make a
difference. Most people don't fit exactly on the narrow path between right
and left. The two party system has become so polarized that there is
little room for moderates in either camp. Not that they aren't there, it's
just not good for the career to buck the party line.
I'm all for ejecting the incumbents that aren't worthy to lead our
federal, state, and local governments. Problem is, if we keep reaching
into the same two barrels for replacements, we'll keep getting the same
results.

I hope you're weathering the storm OK down there. I'm putting the plywood
back on the windows here in N. Florida. This is sure getting old...

Russ

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 09:12:14 -0700, Doug Winterburn
calmly ranted:

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 11:30:28 -0400, Jeff Harper wrote:

He might have if he'd voted in Florida. If there was ever a President
who
would have trouble, it's him.


How predictable are you guys? The liberal line is always that the
republican president is an idiot.

Uh huh. And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the most
powerful position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people.

Do you really?

That would be 1 in 300 million or so since the prez has to be a citizen
of the US, and reduced considerably further by the constitutional age
requirement of 35 years and residency requirement of 14 years. But since
you don't seem to be aware of this, that's at least one case where he is
more qualified.

1,000:1 that the Shrub didn't know that, either, Doug.
Truthfully, I'd rather have Dan Quayle holding that office.
It's possible that he would have known the odds.

---
In Christianity, neither morality nor religion comes into contact
with reality at any point. --FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE
---------------------------------------------------------------
- http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development -

Swingman wrote:

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message ...

Uh huh. And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the

most

powerful position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people.

Do you really?

... and just how "intelligent" was getting your knob polished in the

Oval

Office, getting caught, then attempting to deny it?

That was foolish, agreed. So what? We are talking about Bush's lack of
intelligence, not Clinton's not yours.


Closer to what was exhibited in the "1 out of 6 billion people" statement
above, I'd say.


You're either really naive, or about the same wattage, to believe that
"intelligence" is a prerequisite for the job.

It is *your* ignorance/stupidity is shining brightly.


Of course, I am just another one of the "morons around here", but is English
your first language?


Of course we want an intelligent man in office. Only someone with
remarkably poor judgment would not consider intelligence important to the
job.


We had one of those last time ... see above.

I'll say it again ... you'd have to be a practicing Indian affairs lawyer to
be conversant with the nuances of "tribal sovereignty". What you really
meant to say in your original post, in place of "intelligence", was
"ignorance" .

... and you should know better than most that ignorance should be forgiven.
:)

Why couldn't Bush have taken the honest straightforward path and
admitted that he didn't know? If he felt that he would honestly do so,
he might have added that he would look into the matter. Integrity and
honesty have disappeared.
sigh,
jo4hn

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:19:00 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:


1,000:1 that the Shrub didn't know that, either, Doug.
Truthfully, I'd rather have Dan Quayle holding that office.
It's possible that he would have known the odds.


Hell, Shrub still don't know that Chad is a country, instead of part
of a shabby device that got him where he is.



Regards,
Tom.

"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:19:00 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:


1,000:1 that the Shrub didn't know that, either, Doug. Truthfully, I'd
rather have Dan Quayle holding that office. It's possible that he would
have known the odds.

Damn! I prefer Hunts catsup and I liked the Corvair. What to
do, what to do...

-Doug

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:50:01 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:


Damn! I prefer Hunts catsup and I liked the Corvair. What to
do, what to do...

-Doug

Damn Doug - my first car was a 1960 Corvair. I wiped it out exactly
as described in UAAS on two occasions.

BTW - I got that car because Mom bought a new 1968 Corvair - if it
weren't for that, I'd have thought that she was trying to send me a
message.



Regards,
Tom.

"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:01:06 -0400, Tom Watson wrote:

Damn Doug - my first car was a 1960 Corvair. I wiped it out exactly as
described in UAAS on two occasions.

BTW - I got that car because Mom bought a new 1968 Corvair - if it weren't
for that, I'd have thought that she was trying to send me a message.

Well, I have to admit my bias comes from getting my first piece of - ah,
ummm, err - never mind...

-Doug

PS: it was a spiffy red Corvair convertible - the car that is.


--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 11:30:28 -0400, Jeff Harper wrote:

He might have if he'd voted in Florida. If there was ever a
President
who
would have trouble, it's him.


How predictable are you guys? The liberal line is always that the
republican president is an idiot.

Uh huh. And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the most
powerful position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people.

Do you really?

That would be 1 in 300 million or so since the prez has to be a citizen
of the US, and reduced considerably further by the constitutional age
requirement of 35 years and residency requirement of 14 years. But since
you don't seem to be aware of this, that's at least one case where he is
more qualified.

I didn't say he was chosen from a group of 6 billion, moron.

You dodged the question and employed two types of fallacious reasoning
(tstrawman and ad hominem).

Answer the question honestly and directly. You can't bring yourself to
admit Bush is not qualified, can you?

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL



I favor Bush, but Doug W did fine. You blew it, here's your sign Jeff!

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...

And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

You didn't ... apparently Florida was quite incapable of that.

http://viral.3dge.net/attachments/00...overeignty.mov

JESSE JACKSON: "The President explained. You just didn't understand.
Sovereignty is sovereignty. You understand? It's like in sovereignity.
If
you are on a reservation, you have been soverized. Your Ph.D. is in
soverbication. You understand? I don't think you understand."

Say what?! ... ;)

He was mocking Bush.

When President Bush was questioned about tribal sovereignty in the 21st
century at a gathering of minority journalists he responded: "Tribal
sovereignty means that. It's sovereign. You're a ... you're a ... you've
been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign entity." Jesse
Jackson makes light of Bush's remarks at the conference and we speak with
Mark Trahant, the reporter who asked Bush the question. [includes rush
transcript]

http://www.democracynow.org/article....=thread&tid=25


I'm glad you posted that. Agree with Bush's position or not, the whole
story, as usual, is more than what we are led to believe. Bush fumbled
around, but then went on to address the question more fully. The whole
exchange, from your link, is as follows:

MARK TRAHANT: Most school kids learn about government in the context of
city, county, state and federal, and of course, tribal governments are not
part of that at all. Mr. President, you have been a governor and a
president, so you have unique experience looking at it from two directions.
What do you think tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century and how do we
resolve conflicts between tribes and the federal and state governments?

GEORGE BUSH: Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a --
you're a -- you have been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign
entity.

MARK TRAHANT: Okay.

GEORGE BUSH: And therefore, the relationship between the federal government
and tribes is one between sovereign entities. Now, the federal government
has got a responsibility on matters like education and security to help. And
health care. And it's a solemn duty. From this perspective, we must continue
to uphold that duty. I think that one of the most promising areas of all is
to help with economic development, and that means helping people understand
what it means to start a business. That's why the Small Business
Administration has increased loans. It means, obviously, encouraging capital
flows, but none of that will happen unless the education systems flourish
and are strong. That's why I told you, we spent $1.1 billion in
reconstruction of Native American schools.



Not such a bad response really.

dwhite

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 18:28:17 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...

Hmm. Guess I missed your meaning. I'm so used to morons on here.

If you find yourself running into "morons" you might take a look in the
mirror and see if you can spot what might be attracting them.



Methinks Messr Harper equates, "disagrees with my opinions" with "moron".

"jo4hn" wrote in message
nk.net...
Why couldn't Bush have taken the honest straightforward path and
admitted that he didn't know? If he felt that he would honestly do so,
he might have added that he would look into the matter. Integrity and
honesty have disappeared.
sigh,

....because his political enemies are lying about his record as it is. Can
you believe what they would do if he was on record as saying he didn't know
something that had anything to do with a minority? Hell, some of them are
already comparing Bush to Hitler.

dwhite

"jo4hn" wrote in message

Why couldn't Bush have taken the honest straightforward path and
admitted that he didn't know? If he felt that he would honestly do so,
he might have added that he would look into the matter. Integrity and
honesty have disappeared.
sigh,

Before you become go too comfortable in the "he didn't know" scenario,
consider:

1997 US Supreme Court: "Indian tribes ... should be accorded the same status
as foreign sovereigns"

Bush: "Tribal sovereignty means that. It's sovereign. You're a ... you're a
.... you've been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign entity."

So, he stuttered. but where's the beef?

Is it possible a lot of folks are being duped/agendized with some pretty
esoteric bull**** on this issue, and in this thread?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

I didn't say he was chosen from a group of 6 billion, moron.

You dodged the question and employed two types of fallacious reasoning
(tstrawman and ad hominem).

Answer the question honestly and directly. You can't bring yourself to
admit Bush is not qualified, can you?


No wonder elections are such an ordeal in Florida!

Dodged again.

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Harper" wrote in message ...
Uh huh. And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the
most
powerful position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people.

Do you really?

... and just how "intelligent" was getting your knob polished in the
Oval
Office, getting caught, then attempting to deny it?

That was foolish, agreed. So what? We are talking about Bush's lack of
intelligence, not Clinton's not yours.

Closer to what was exhibited in the "1 out of 6 billion people" statement
above, I'd say.

Moron. Do you really think anyone thought the election was world-wide? You
are presenting a strawman argument.


You're either really naive, or about the same wattage, to believe that
"intelligence" is a prerequisite for the job.

You're such a bright bulb!



It is *your* ignorance/stupidity is shining brightly.

Of course, I am just another one of the "morons around here", but is
English
your first language?

Of course we want an intelligent man in office. Only someone with
remarkably poor judgment would not consider intelligence important to
the
job.

We had one of those last time ... see above.

I'll say it again ... you'd have to be a practicing Indian affairs lawyer
to
be conversant with the nuances of "tribal sovereignty". What you really
meant to say in your original post, in place of "intelligence", was
"ignorance" .


Almost anyone could have answered that question better than Bush did.

And, yes, Bush should have some idea of government-indian relations.

That would be 1 in 300 million or so since the prez has to be a citizen
of the US, and reduced considerably further by the constitutional age
requirement of 35 years and residency requirement of 14 years. But since
you don't seem to be aware of this, that's at least one case where he is
more qualified.

1,000:1 that the Shrub didn't know that, either, Doug.
Truthfully, I'd rather have Dan Quayle holding that office.
It's possible that he would have known the odds.

Just to point out something that should be obvious: I never implied that
Bush was elected in a world-wide election in which every man, woman, and
child was a candidate.

That was Winterburn's strawman argument (which apparently had some success),
put up because he couldn't argue on merit.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news:1096250248.cbxzOQwHzWP30IHB+mXLNQ@teranews...
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 18:28:17 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...

Hmm. Guess I missed your meaning. I'm so used to morons on here.

If you find yourself running into "morons" you might take a look in the
mirror and see if you can spot what might be attracting them.



Methinks Messr Harper equates, "disagrees with my opinions" with
"moron".

Not at all. And notice I did not call him a moron, but he did call me one.

I will, however, observe that you aren't particularly clever, though you
fancy yourself such.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 23:10:14 -0400, Jeff Harper wrote:

I didn't say he was chosen from a group of 6 billion, moron.

You dodged the question and employed two types of fallacious reasoning
(tstrawman and ad hominem).

Answer the question honestly and directly. You can't bring yourself
to admit Bush is not qualified, can you?


No wonder elections are such an ordeal in Florida!

Dodged again.

No dodge - whomever gets elected *IS* qualified, simply by coming out
ahead at the end of the process and according to the rules in place
*before* the process. I know this is somewhat mysterious to the leftist
inhabitants of Florida, but keep studying and you won't have to depend on
the Chicago ex-mayor's family to fly in and try to alter the rules *after*
the fact.

-Doug

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 23:16:47 -0400, Jeff Harper wrote:

Just to point out something that should be obvious: I never implied that
Bush was elected in a world-wide election in which every man, woman, and
child was a candidate.

That was Winterburn's strawman argument (which apparently had some
success), put up because he couldn't argue on merit.


And what strawman argument would that be? Florida Jeff stated:

"Uh huh. And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the most
powerful position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people."

Seems to me you're implying that there were up to 5,999,999,999 better
choices. Now, if you'd said 50 to 100 million potential better choices,
you wouldn't have to be whining now. You'd still be wrong, though.

-Doug

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:20:06 -0400, "Jeff Harper"
calmly ranted:

"WoodMangler" wrote in message

There are alternatives to the Dem/Gop status quo.

www.lp.org

We must choose the best candidate of the two, or the lesser of two evils if
you prefer, because a vote for a third candidate is *almost* the same as no
vote.

Wrong. Until we start voting with our consciences, the same
old corrupt reps and dems will scurry about D.C. with full
impunity. Michael Badnarik is my candidate for President.
Please join me. Those of us who were dissatisfied with the
corruption in Washington nearly made it go away when 25%
of us voted for Perot. All we have to do is band together
and put someone we WANT in office for it to start toward a
government that we can once again be proud of. Just DO IT!


I believe Kerry is superior, but if I thought they were the same, "not a
nickle's worth of difference," I would vote Bush out of office. The message
to future Presidents is then that they have to be more responsive to the
people if they want a second term. Keep voting the incumbent out until we
get someone worthy in office.

A "lesser of 2 evils" vote is a wasted vote. Until you vote
for the third party candidate of your choice, they don't get
any credit for you wanting -them- over the corrupt sumbishes
who are now in office. Until you start voting differently, we
will all keep getting what we've been getting: Corruption,
plain and simple. Let's vote the bad guys _out_, OK?

You have 36 days to make up you mind. Is it going to be the
same old ****, or are you brave enough to vote the way you
want to vote in November? Even if our candidate doesn't win,
if all of us vote with our consciences, there will be big
changes in D.C. next year. I guarantee it.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Scattered Showers My Ass! * Insightful Advertising Copy
* --Noah * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------